Main Menu

You are here:

The General Strike - Page 5

There has been a great deal of confusion as to just what was
meant by the term, General Strike. In the past any strike of
considerable proportions has usually been referred to as a
"General Strike." But many times this definition was not really
applicable. Much of the misconception results from an erroneous
or limited conception as to what a General Strike is and what it
is supposed to do. The General Strike, as its name implies, must
be a revolutionary or class strike instead of a strike for
amelioration of conditions. It must be designed to abolish
private ownership of the means of life and to supplant it with
social ownership. It must be a strike, not of a few local,
industrial or national groupings of workers but of the industrial
workers of the world as an entity. If we keep in mind that there
are four phases of the General Strike it will help to understand
clearly what we mean by using the term:

A General Strike in a community.

A General Strike in an Industry.

A national General Strike.

A revolutionary or class strike-- THE General Strike.

It will be seen from the above that, while the first three are
General Strikes in the limited and commonly accpeted meaning of
the term, only the last, or revolutionary class strike, is a
General Strike in the full meaning of the term. The first three
have been attempted at times with varying degrees of success, but
the last has yet to be organized and made effective.

Thus, for instance, the display of industrial power by the
workers of Finland and Russia in 1905 or that in connection with
the upheaval in Moscow which resulted in the overthrow of the
Kerensky government in 1917, or the strike of the French Railroad
workers in 1909, the great strike in Sweden in 1909, or the
strike in Germany when the administration of Von Kapp was
embarrassed in the same manner. There were also important General
Strikes in Belgium in 1913, in Buenos Aries in 1920 and again in
Great Britain in 1926. All these have been referred to as
"General Strikes." And they are General Strikes in the limited
sense defined above.

Outstanding "General Strikes"

The so-called General Strike in Denmark which was called by
the Socialists to block the forming of an unpopular cabinet by
the King is an example in point, as is the now famous attempt of
the Italian workers to take over the industries in 1920.

The I.W.W. strikes of 100,000 lumber jacks or 40,000 copper
miners in 1917 are fair examples of the industrial General
Strike, while those affecting Seattle and Winnipeg are examples
of the community General Strike. Volumes might be written about
each of the instances cited. But in the end it would be plain
that in each case the strikes did not cover sufficient area and
were not supported by a sufficient number of workers in the
various industries. Nor was the abolition of wage-slavery the
objective of these strikes. In other words they were merely the
foreshadowing of what Labor could do for itself under greater
provocation, inspired by a greater sense of solidarity and with a
more perfected organization at its disposal.

The conditions necessary for the successful operation of any
of the four kinds of General Strike enumerated above have never
existed. But, because it has not as yet been possible to use the
economic power of Labor to full advantage, is no sign that such
conditions will never exist. It has often been said, quite
truthfully that, "one swallow does not make the spring." It is
equally true that swallows never visit us in the dead of winter.
The fact that Labor has succeeded to a limited extent indicates
that it can use its economic power to a much greater extent.

The General Strike, once clearly defined and understood,
offers Labor a weapon in the use of which Labor has shown great
aptitude and willingness-- a weapon with which all other weapons
in the class war are puny in comparison. Just as gunpowder
replaced the bow and arrow, so economic action will displace
Labor's cruder and less potent weapons in the final struggle for
emancipation from wage slavery. Only the most shallow-minded
critics of working class tactics will seek to discourage the use
of Labor's greatest power for the attainment of Labor's highest
goal. And only the most superficial observers can fail to see
that the organizational plan of the I.W.W. is ideally constructed
to enable Labor to use that power.

The Constructive General Strike

The I.W.W. believes that the building of the new society,
especially during the period of crisis, is at least as important
as the abolition of the old. This is not merely a dogma; it is
sound tactics. If the aim of the social revolution is to achieve
the socialization and democratic control of industry, the time to
make that achievement a fact is during the revolutionary crisis,
and with as little delay, red-tape or middle class misdirection
as possible. At all events it would be fatal to lose track of the
goal during the period of turmoil. It should be plain, even to
the most casual observer, that European tactics are not
altogether suitable for the needs of American labor. In the
U.S.A. there is not one, but three distinct types of culture--
the industrial east and middle west, the feudal south and the
still poineering west coast. In any of these it is apparent that
it would be an easy thing, under incitation, for the class war to
degenerate into a religious, political or race war. And it is
even more apparent that the impact of mob violence on the highly
developed industrial organism would result in a disaster which
might result in universal destruction and ultimate chaos.
Sometimes one is forced to wonder at the temerity of the
leadership of the American Communist movement in thinking that
they can control and direct to constructive ends the sinister
forces in the Pandora box of civil war, which they seem eager to
release upon a land whose language they hardly know how to
speak.

The I.W.W. has always taken the position that armed
insurrection in a technically advanced country like the U.S.A.
would be quite a different thing from an armed insurrection in a
technically backward and largely agricultural country like
Russia-- particularly under conditions which prevailed in Moscow
and Petrograd following the armistice in 1918. What American
conditions demand is a large scale operation in the nature of a
well-co-ordinated lockout of the Captains of Finance by both
workers and technicians which would put an end to the profit
system but leave the production and transportation of goods
unimpaired. This, coupled with the program of picketing the
industries by the unemployed, is what the I.W.W. has in mind in
advocating the General Strike. Anything less than this or more,
is simply adding confusion unto confusion. The logic runs like
this: A perfect modern timepiece can be kicked apart as easily as
a tin toy; but it is much harder to put together again.

The
Fighting Vanguard

In America the I.W.W. is, and has been since its inception,
the standard bearer of revolutionary industrial unionism. From
the very beginning the I.W.W. has been industrially-minded.
Largely as the result of its constant insistence on the use of
economic power, both Socialists and Communists have been forced
to admit that, in the revolutionary movement, the labor union is
the fighting vanguard. Both parties now seek industrial contacts
and both stand, theoretically at least, in favor of industrial
unionism. Both will admit, when pinned down to it, that the
future society will be organized on the basis of industrial
administration rather than poltical government. The trouble is
both parties, due no doubt, to the generous admixture of
non-proletarian elements in their ranks, are top-heavy with
politics. They think in terms of political campaigns (and even
more foolish things) instead of strikes, picket lines and unions
which make the attainment of substantial economic power possible.
Political parties being organized within specific national
boundaries, must of necessity remain nationalistic. In the very
nature of things it is impossible for them to conceive of
international solidarity save in terms of the federation of
national units.

The I.W.W. on the other hand, ignores national boundary lines
and views the problem from the standpoint of the closely knit and
organically related, world-embracing interdependence of the
producing class. The I.W.W. contends that "hands across the sea"
must be the hands of industrial workers and not politicians.
Nothing more forcibly proves the correctness of this position
than the two world wars. Four and a half millions of Socialist
voters in Germany, and additional millions of Socialist voters in
France, England and Belgium, were unable to stop the
greed-inspired cataclysm which started in 1914 and which has been
progressing until the recent world holocaust. Labor gained
nothing from these wars. It lost heavily. It paid the cost in
blood, misery and substance and it will continue to pay for many
years to come. And the goal of Labor is even further now than it
was at the start of World War I. The I.W.W. claimed in 1914, and
still claims, that, had the workers of Europe been organized
industrially, drilled, disciplined and educated in the use of
industrial power, not only would these imperialist slaughterfests
have been impossible, but the final victory of Labor would long
since have been achieved.

The
Function of the Labor Union

If the political saviors of the working class in the U.S.A.
would only profit from this fatal mistake and, even now, seek to
build up a powerful revolutionary industrial union movement
instead of huge, unweildy political machines, the prospects for a
clean-cut victory for Labor would be immeasurably brighter.

On the face of it the precise function of a political party
with its largely non-proletarian leadership in a labor union
movement is difficult to determine. The advantage to the rank and
file in the union of control by politicians is still harder to
discover. To imply that the industrial union, for instance, needs
the leadership and domination of the political party is to imply
that union men are incapable of managing their own affairs. To
admit that the industrial union is and must be merely the adjunct
of the political party is to admit that economic power is of less
importance than political power and that the labor union is
designed to be merely the plaything of the ambitious politician
or the tool of the designing bourgeois leader. If this is to be
the attitude why is it necessary to have unions at all? Why not
go back to the pre-war "yellow" Socialist who believed that
unions were much more of a hinderance than a help to the workers
inasmuch as the union distracted the mind of the worker from the
ballot box? If the term "Industrial Democracy" means anything at
all it means that the membership of the union-- the actual
workers in industry-- are entitled to and capable of controlling
the affairs of their own organization without interference from
outsiders.

Workers Should
Build Industrial Power

In teaching the working class the need for and benefits of
revolutionary industrial unionism political parties are doing
necessary and valuable work. But in seeking to dominate and
control the industrial movement from outside or inside political
parties, knowingly or otherwise, they are making a ghastly
mistake. The I.W.W. still remembers the lesson of 1914.

It stands to reason that it does not and cannot come within
the province of a political party to organize or make effective
either a General Strike or any other kind of strike. They can
advocate, encourage and call for the full or partial use of
Labor's industrial power, but only an organization functioning in
industry can make such action possible. The political party lacks
the machinery either to call or carry on a strike. If it had this
machinery it would be a labor union and not a political party.
Only the workers organized into their own unions can function
either for purposes of combat or administration in this
capacity.

For this reason workers in all countries who wish to use their
combined industrial power to put an end to exploitation and wage
slavery should seek to build up an irresistable One Big Union
movement along lines advocated by the Industrial Workers of the
World. And, unless they wish to give up the principle of
democracy for the principle of dictatorship, they should refuse
to give over the control of their organization to politicians or
non-proletarian leaders of any stripe or color.